Partition 70 years on: The turmoil, trauma - and legacy - BBC News

Brian Lapping's excellent book "End Of Empire" is not so much a book as an encyclopedia. Every nation Britain conquered is in there. Timetables for when it became British, how they conquered it, how long they had it and when they released it are also discussed. Sadly, Britain made plans as early as the turn of the century to release India as a responsibility. Had WW1 not intervened, India would more than likely have been independent rule by 1930. Britain's other far Eastern adventures were earning more money and offering less security hassle. Come WW2, the nation pressed hard for independence which came at distressing times for Britain, like battle of Britain, fall of Singapore, etc. The government naturally took that as "kicking a man when he was down" and plans were made to f**k the Indians.

When Britain found itself broke at the end of the war, the Indian collusions with Japan were well noted and remembered in London. Britain all but pulled the plug on India. Little effort was made to partition cohesively, let alone fairly. Similar nonsense was being played out in the British Palestinian Mandate where Britain just didn't have the cash (or desire) to try and make peace out of anarchy. Had India been a little more intelligent, they'd have gotten a better deal.

Very interesting article. I doubt the relations between the two get significantly better in the next 70 years.